Jodha Akbar serial Fake Story

Jodha Akbar serial Fake Story Reality Check, Exposed !!

CLICK HERE

कौन कहता है कि अकबर महान था ? AKBAR WAS A LIKE ISIL ISLAMIST AND THEIR PAGAMBUR

श्री पुरुषोत्तम नागेश ओक, (२ मार्च,१९१७-७ दिसंबर,२००७), जिन्हें लघुनाम श्री.पी.एन.
ओक के नाम से जाना जाता है,द्वारा रचित पुस्तक "कौन कहता है कि अकबर महान था?"
में अकबर के सन्दर्भ में ऐतिहासिक सत्य को उद्घाटित करते हुए कुछ तथ्य सामने रखे हैं
जो वास्तव में विचारणीय हैं.....

अकबर को अकबर-ऐ-आज़म (अर्थात अकबर महान) के नाम से भी जाना जाता है।
जलालउद्दीन मोहम्मद अकबर मुगल वंश का तीसरा शासक था।
सम्राट अकबर मुगल साम्राज्य के संस्थापक जहीरुद्दीन मुहम्मद बाबर का पोता और
नासिरुद्दीन हुमायूं और हमीदा बानो का पुत्र था।
बाबर का वंश तैमूर से था, अर्थात उसके वंशज तैमूर लंग के खानदान से थे और
मातृपक्ष का संबंध चंगेज खां से था।
इस प्रकार अकबर की नसों में एशिया की दो प्रसिद्ध आतंकी जातियों, तुर्क और मंगोल
के रक्त का सम्मिश्रण था।
बाबर के शासनकाल के बाद हुमायूं दस वर्ष तक भी शासन नहीं कर पाया और उसे
अफगान के शेरशाह सूरी से पराजित होकर भागना पड़ा।

अपने परिवार और सहयोगियों के साथ वह सिन्ध की ओर गया, जहां उसने सिंधु
नदी के तट पर भक्कर के पास रोहरी नामक स्थान पर पांव जमाने चाहे।
रोहरी से कुछ दूर पतर नामक स्थान था, जहां उसके भाई हिन्दाल का शिविर था।
कुछ दिन के लिए हुमायूं वहां भी रुका।
वहीं मीर बाबा दोस्त उर्फ अलीअकबर जामी नामक एक ईरानी की चौदह वर्षीय
सुंदर कन्या हमीदाबानों उसके मन को भा गई जिससे उसने विवाह करने की इच्छा
जाहिर की।
अतः हिन्दाल की मां दिलावर बेगम के प्रयास से १४ अगस्त, १५४१ को हुमायूं और
हमीदाबानो का विवाह हो गया।
कुछ दिन बाद अपने साथियों एवं गर्भवती पत्नी हमीदा को लेकर हुमायूं २३ अगस्त,
१५४२ को अमरकोट के राजा बीरसाल के राज्य में पहुंचा।
हालांकि हुमायूं अपना राजपाट गवां चुका था, मगर फिर भी राजपूतों की विशेषता के
अनुसार बीरसाल ने उसका समुचित आतिथ्य किया।

अमरकोट में ही १५ अक्टूबर,
१५४२ को हमीदा बेगम ने अकबर को जन्म दिया।
अकबर का जन्म पूर्णिमा के दिन हुआ था इसलिए उनका नाम बदरुद्दीन मोहम्मद
अकबर रखा गया था।

बद्र का अर्थ होता है पूर्ण चंद्रमा और अकबर उनके नाना शेख अली अकबर जामी
के नाम से लिया गया था।
कहा जाताहै कि काबुल पर विजय मिलने के बाद उनके पिता हुमायूँ ने बुरी नज़र से
बचने के लिए अकबर की जन्म तिथि एवं नाम बदल दिए थे।
अरबी भाषा मे अकबर शब्द का अर्थ “महान” या बड़ा होता है।
अकबर का जन्म राजपूत शासक राणा अमरसाल के महल में हुआ था यह स्थान
वर्तमान पाकिस्तान के सिंध प्रांत में है।
खोये हुए राज्य को पुनः प्राप्त करने के लिये अकबर के पिता हुमायूँ के अनवरत
प्रयत्न अंततः सफल हुए और वह सन्‌ १५५५ में हिंदुस्तान पहुँच सका किंतु अगले
ही वर्ष सन्‌ १५५६ में राजधानी दिल्ली में उसकी मृत्यु हो गई और गुरदासपुर के
कलनौर नामक स्थान पर १४ वर्ष की आयु में अकबर का राजतिलक हुआ।
अकबर का संरक्षक बैरम (बेरहम) खान को नियुक्त किया गया जिसका प्रभाव उस
पर १५६० तक रहा।

तत्कालीन मुगल राज्य केवल काबुल से दिल्ली तक ही फैला हुआ था।
हेमु के नेतृत्व में अफगान सेना पुनः संगठित होकर उसके सम्मुख चुनौती बनकर
खड़ी थी।
सन्‌ १५६० में अकबर ने स्वयं सत्ता संभाल ली और अपने संरक्षक बैरम खां को
निकाल बाहर किया।
अब अकबर के अपने हाथों में सत्ता थी लेकिन अनेक कठिनाइयाँ भी थीं।
जैसे – शम्सुद्दीन अतका खान की हत्या पर उभरा जन आक्रोश (१५६३), उज़बेक
विद्रोह (१५६४-६५) और मिर्ज़ा भाइयों का विद्रोह (१५६६-६७) किंतु अकबर ने बड़ी
कुशलता से इन समस्याओं को हल कर लिया।
अपनी कल्पनाशीलता से उसने अपने सामंतों की संख्या बढ़ाई।
सन्‌ १५६२ में आमेर के शासक से उसने समझौता किया –
इस प्रकार राजपूत राजा भी उसकी ओर हो गये।
इसी प्रकार उसने ईरान से आने वालों को भी बड़ी सहायता दी।
भारतीय मुसलमानों को भी उसने अपने कुशल व्यवहार से अपनी ओर कर लिया।
"हिन्दुओं पर लगे जज़िया १५६२ में अकबर ने हटा दिया, किंतु १५७५ में वापस लगाना
पड़ा |
जज़िया कर गरीब हिन्दुओं को गरीबी से विवश होकर इस्लाम की शरण लेने के लिए
लगाया जाता था।
यह मुस्लिम लोगों पर नहीं लगाया जाता था।
इस कर के कारण बहुत सी गरीब हिन्दू जनसंख्या पर बोझ पड़ता था, जिससे विवश
हो कर वे इस्लाम कबूल कर लिया करते थे।"
अपने शासन के आरंभिक काल में ही अकबर यह समझ गया कि सूरी वंश को
समाप्त किए बिना वह चैन से शासन नहीं कर सकेगा।
इसलिए वह सूरी वंश के सबसे शक्तिशाली शासक सिकंदर शाह सूरी पर आक्रमण
करने पंजाब चल पड़ा।
दिल्ली का शासन उसने मुग़ल सेनापति तारदी बैग खान को सौंप दिया।
सिकंदर शाह सूरी अकबरके लिए बहुत बड़ा प्रतिरोध साबित नही हुआ।
कुछ प्रदेशो मे तो अकबर के पहुंचने से पहले ही उसकी सेना पीछे हट जाती थी।
अकबर की अनुपस्थिति मे हेमू विक्रमादित्य ने दिल्ली और आगरा पर आक्रमण कर
विजय प्राप्त की।

६ अक्तूबर १५५६ को हेमु ने स्वयं को भारत का महाराजा घोषित कर दिया।
इसी के साथ दिल्ली मे हिंदू राज्य की पुनः स्थापना हुई।
अकबर के लिए पानिपत का युद्ध निर्णायक था हारने का मतलब फिर से काबुल जाना !
जीतने का अर्थ हिंदुस्तान पर राज !
पराक्रमी हिन्दू राजा हेमू के खिलाफ इस युद्ध मे अकबर हार निश्चित थी लेकिन अंत मे
एक तीर हेमू की आँख मे आ घुसा और मस्तक को भेद गया |
"वह मूर्छित हो गया घायल हो कर और उसके हाथी महावत को लेकर जंगल मे भाग
गया !
सेना तितर बितर हो गयी और अकबर की सेना का सामना करने मे असमर्थ हो
गई !

हेमू को पकड़ कर लाया गया अकबर और उसके सरंक्षक बहराम खान के सामने
इंडिया के "सेकुलर और महान" अकबर ने लाचार और घायल मूर्छित हेमू की गर्दन
को काट दिया और उसका सिर काबुल भेज दिया प्रदर्शन के लिए उसका बाकी का शव
दिल्ली के एक दरवाजे पर लटका दिया उससे पहले घायल हेमू को मुल्लों ने तलवारों
से घोप दिया लहलुहान किया !"
इतना महान था मुग़ल बादशाह अकबर !
हेमू को मारकर दिल्ली पर पुनः अधिकार जमाने के बाद अकबर ने अपने राज्य का
विस्तार करना शुरू किया और मालवा को १५६२ में, गुजरात को १५७२ में, बंगाल को
१५७४ में, काबुल को १५८१ में, कश्मीर को १५८६ में और खानदेश को १६०१ में मुग़ल
साम्राज्य के अधीन कर लिया।
अकबर ने इन राज्यों में एक एक राज्यपाल नियुक्त किया।
अकबर जब अहमदाबाद आया था २ दिसंबर १५७३ को तो दो हज़ार (२,०००) विद्रोहियो
के सिर काटकर उससे पिरामिण्ड बनाए थे !
"जब किसी विद्रोही को दरबार मे लाया जाता था तब उसके सिर को काटकर उसमे
भूसा भरकर तेल सुगंधी लगा कर प्रदर्शनी लगाता था "अकबर महान" बंगाल के
विद्रोह मे ही अकेले उस महान अकबर ने करीब तीस हज़ार (३०,०००) लोगो को मौत
के घाट उतारा था !"
अकबर के दरबारी भगवनदास ने भी इन कुकृत्यों से तंग आकार स्वयं को ही छूरा-भोक
कर अत्महत्या कर ली थी |

चित्तौड़गढ़ के दुर्ग रक्षक सेनिकों के साथ जो यातनाएं और अत्याचार अकबर ने किए
वो तो सबसे बर्बर और क्रूरतापूर्ण थे |
२४ फरवरी, १५६८ को अकबर चित्तौड़ के दुर्ग मे प्रवेश किया उसने कत्लेआम और लूट
का आदेश दिया हमलावर पूरे दिन लूट और कत्लेआम करते रहे विध्वंस करते घूमते
रहे एक घायल गोविंद श्याम के मंदिर के निकट पड़ा था तो अकबर ने उसे हाथी से कुचला !
आठ हजार योद्धा राजपूतो के साथ दुर्ग मे चालीस हज़ार (४०,०००) किसान भी थे जो
देख रेख और मरम्मत के कार्य कर रहे थे !
कत्ले आम का आदेश तब तक नहीं लिया जब तक उसमे से तेतीस हज़ार (३३,०००)
लोगो को नहीं मारा , अकबर के हाथो से ना तो मंदिर बचे और ना ही मीनारें !
अकबर ने जितने युद्ध लड़े है उसमे उसने बीस लाख (२०,०००००) लोगो को मौत के
घाट उतारा !
अकबर यह नही चाहता था की मुग़ल साम्राज्य का केन्द्र दिल्ली जैसे दूरस्थ शहर में हो;
इसलिए उसने यह निर्णय लिया की मुग़ल राजधानी को फतेहपुर सीकरी ले जाया जाए
जो साम्राज्य के मध्य में थी।
कुछ ही समय के बाद अकबर को राजधानी फतेहपुर सीकरी से हटानी पड़ी।
कहा जाता है कि पानी की कमी इसका प्रमुख कारणथा।
फतेहपुर सीकरी के बाद अकबर ने एक चलित दरबार बनाया जो कि साम्राज्य भर में
घूमता रहता था इस प्रकार साम्राज्य के सभी कोनो पर उचित ध्यान देना सम्भव हुआ।
सन १५८५ में उत्तर पश्चिमी राज्य के सुचारू राज पालन के लिए अकबर ने लाहौर को
राजधानी बनाया।
अपनी मृत्यु के पूर्व अकबर ने सन १५९९ में वापस आगरा को राजधानी बनाया और
अंत तक यहीं से शासन संभाला ।

अब कुछ प्रश्न अकबर की महानता के सम्बन्ध में विचारणीय हैं, जो किसी भी विचारशील व्यक्ति को यही कहने पर विवश कर देंगे कि...कौन कहता है –
अकबर महान था ????
(१.)यदि अगर अकबर से सभी प्रेम करते थे, आदर की दृष्टि से देखते थे तो इस प्रकार शीघ्रतापूर्वक बिना किसी उत्सव के उसे मृत्यु के तुरंत बाद क्यों दफनाया गया ?
(२.)जब अकबर अधिक पीता नहीं था तो उसे शराब पर अधिक ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता
क्यों पड़ी ?
(

३.)आखिर अकबर को इतिहास महान क्यों कहता है, जिसने हिन्दू नगरों को नष्ट
किया ?
(४.)अगर फतेहपुरसीकरी का निर्माण अकबर ने कराया तो इस नाम का उल्लेख
अकबर के पहले के इतिहासों में कैसे है ?
(५.)क्या अकबर जैसा शराबी, हिंसक, कामुक, साम्राज्यवादी बादशाह खुदा की बराबरी
रखता है ?
(६.)क्या जानवरों को भी मुस्लिम बना देने वाला ऐसा धर्मांध अकबर महान है ?
(७.)क्या ऐसा अनपढ़ एवं मूर्खो जैसी बात करने वाला अकबर महान है ?
(८.)क्या अत्याचारी, लूट-खसोट करने वाला, जनता को लुटने वाला अकबर महान था ?
(९.)क्या ऐसा कामुक एवं पतित बादशाह अकबर महान है !
(१०.)क्या अपने पालनकर्ता बैरम खान को मरकर उसकी विधवा से विवाह कर लेने
वाला अकबर महान था |
(११.)क्या औरत को अपनी कामवासना और हवस को शांत करने वाली वस्तुमात्र समझने
वाला अकबर महान था |
अकबर औरतो के लिबास मे मीना बाज़ार जाता था |
मीना बाज़ार मे जो औरत अकबर को पसंद आ जाती,उसके महान फौजी उस औरत को
उठा ले जाते और कामी अकबर के लिए हरम मे पटक देते |
ऐसे ही ना जाने कितने प्रश्नचिन्ह अकबर की महानता के सन्दर्भ में हैं....,
जयति पुण्य सनातन संस्कृति ,,जयति पुण्य भूमि भारत....
सदा सुमंगल,,वंदेमातरम..

Columbus did not discover United States. He started Christianity conversion,loot,killed originals.

All school children have memorized the old rhyme “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue” in order to help them remember the date and the name of the explorer who “found” America.

But new evidence, including a map, indicates that there may need to be a different date and a different name.

The incredible discovery of 14 documents kept in the trunk of an Italian immigrant who settled in San Jose, California, may change history. In particular, the map found among the documents could be an incredibly stunning find. Crudely drawn on sheepskin, the map depicts what appears to be the Bering Straight, Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and the west coast of North America — specifically, Washington state.

The map also indicates that it was Marco Polo, not Christopher Columbus, who made the voyage, and that it happened in the 1200s.

The documents recount how Polo met a Syrian trader on the Kamchatka Peninsula, located on the far eastern edge of the Asian continent. The trader told Polo of a land that was a 40-day voyage east from the peninsula. According to The Smithsonian, the map and documents consist of “hitherto untold encounters with a Syrian navigator, a band of lance-toting women in ermine pelts and people on a peninsula ‘twice as far from China’ who wear sealskin, live on fish and make their houses ‘under the earth.'”

The documents claim then that Polo crossed the Bering Sea and headed straight to North America, and the map seems to be visual support of that claim. It seems as though Polo sailed around the Alaskan coast, the Aleutian Islands, then headed east to British Columbia before heading down the Canadian coast, eventually reaching Washington state.

As The Smithsonian says of Polo, “For a guy who claimed to spend 17 years in China as a confidant of Kublai Khan, Marco Polo left a surprisingly skimpy paper trail. No Asian sources mention the footloose Italian. The only record of his 13th-century odyssey through the Far East is the hot air of his own ‘Travels,’ which was actually an ‘as told to’ penned by a writer of romances.” And there has always been something noticeably missing from what Polo did pen downs — maps. He never drew any maps of any of his travels.

But if the map and other documents are genuine, it wasn’t Marco Polo who drew the map and made the claims, but rather his three daughters — Bellala being the most prolific, but her sisters’ signatures show up on some documents, as well. If authentic, the map and documents would indeed change history. The map shows, after all, that Polo recorded the Alaskan coast, as well as the Bering Strait, four centuries before Vitus Bering, and that Polo was aware of the New World’s existence some two centuries before Columbus set sail.

The map and other documents’ authenticity have not yet been established, but Benjamin B. Olshin, a historian of cartography and professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, says there have been some “tantalizing” finds. The parchments bear inscriptions, he explained, some cryptic, in several languages: Italian, Latin, Arabic and Chinese. Olshin is the first scholar to translate and decode the maps, and one of the most exciting finds, he says, are allusions to “Fusang,” which is an obscure fifth-century Chinese expression that translates as “land across the ocean.” Some scholars contend that “Fusang” alludes to North America.

“Map with Ship,” as the map is being referred to, along with the other documents, were first discovered in the 1930s, but this is the first time they have been studied in-depth.

From www.inquisitr.com

TIME TO REWRITE HISTORY OF INDIA #DEBUNKEDHISORYOFINDIA

“The progressive secularisation of texts under the Nehru-Marxist consensus has ensured that most Indians have been badly severed from their own roots and ancient knowledge. Attempting to correct this balance is hardly the same as majoritarianism or ‘saffronisation’ in the negative sense.” - R. Jagannathan

Critics of the Modi government have always believed that the BJP — as an affiliate of the Sangh Parivar — has a “saffron” agenda. The initial statements made by the new HRD Minister, Smriti Irani, and the new Chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, seem to have confirmed the suspicions of card-carrying “secularists” in this regard.

I find most of the criticisms meaningless for the simple reason that “saffronisation” seems to be, by definition, wrong, even without defining the term clearly. Since nobody has volunteered a definition, I will do so.

Saffronisation can have three possible meanings or implications. One is the narrowest one — which is the imposition of a majoritarian ideology to write a new history that supports this majoritarianism. We are yet to see anything like this in the pronouncements or acts of either Irani or Rao.

Two, “saffronisation” could be a corrective or counter-point to the current view of history. And, three, it could be an effort to acquaint the majority community itself with its past — something that has been systematically denigrated in this country in the name of a synthetic secularism.

There could be other definitions, but for now I have defined it my way. Of these three definitions, saffronisation is a problem only in the first case — and that too, only in a limited way.

Before we start to examine whether the Modi government is at all going to “rewrite history” and “saffronise” it, let us debunk one bit of nonsense straightaway. The very allegation of “saffronisation” contains within it the guilt of the accusers. It tells us what they have been doing for years is rewrite history “their way”.

You can rewrite history in the saffron way only if you believe what is currently called history is “the right way”, with unchallengeable “facts”. Our current rendering of history is, in fact, a version written in the post-independence period, when the Nehruvian-Marxist consensus was that history should be “secular”. So when the Left attacks the Sangh for trying to evolve a “nationalist” version of history, they are effectively admitting that they had a “secularist” project where history had to be seen through their lens – and their lens alone. They were the ones who rewrote history.

In the “secularist” rendering of history, the contributions of ancient Indic civilisations – from the Vedic age to the time of the Buddha and Mahavira and the age of Vedanta – must be dismissed as minor or criticised as Brahminical and savagely inegalitarian; the extreme iconoclasm that came with Islamic invasions must be categorised as mere aberrations; and heroes must be found outside the Hindu tradition to make history truly “secular”. Hence the extreme eulogisation of Akbar as a secular hero when most of pre-Islamic history has been largely secular.

This is not to say we need to wallow in a past history of perceived wrongs, nor am I trying to invalidate the Marxist way of looking at history. But, by that same token, there can be a Sangh way of looking at history too. It is not an illegitimate enterprise.

A thief will always divert attention to others so that his own thievery goes undetected. This is what those accusing the government of attempting to rewrite history are trying to do: evade responsibility for their own rewriting of history by showing up someone else’s attempt.

As Vivek Dehejia, economics professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, wrote in Mint newspaper some months ago: “We have inherited a Victorian conception of history, foisted upon us by our colonisers, that the telling of history consists of uncovering certain ‘truths’, that these truths in turn are based upon uncontested facts, and that these may thus be woven into the tapestry of a tale whose veracity cannot be questioned without appearing to be either retrograde or revolutionary. Modern scholarship turns this view on its head. History is, rather, the telling of a story, the creation of a narrative, which involves the careful selection of facts one deems pertinent and an argument (explicit or implicit) about the causal relationships that bind those facts together into a compelling tale.”

Once again: If there can be a secular version of history, there can be a Sangh version too. A saffron version of history can balance the Marxist version which, anyway, is not going to go away.

Then, there is the question of Smriti Irani’s alleged exertions to rewrite school textbooks with more material from sacred Hindu texts like the Vedas and Upanishads. I can’t see how this can be wrong, especially if it is not meant to rubbish any other text or community.

The progressive secularisation of texts under the Nehru-Marxist consensus has ensured that most Indians have been badly severed from their own roots and ancient knowledge. Attempting to correct this balance is hardly the same as majoritarianism or “saffronisation” in the negative sense.

Sidin Vadukut, writing in Mint newspaper on July 4th, has no problem with this aspect of Irani’s efforts. He writes: “Teaching ancient texts in schools, for what it is worth, is a good idea. Both religious and secular texts are important storehouses of a civilisation’s history, culture and intellectual development. Yet I cannot recall a single ancient text of any variety that I was properly exposed to during my schooling. Yes, I was well-drilled on the existence of the Vedas and the works of assorted ancient scientists and Sangam literature and all that. But could I quote a single line from any of them, let alone with contextual awareness? Nope.”

This leaves us with the final charge: that Sangh loyalists are being planted on the Indian Council of Historical Research, a fact reported with subtle derision by The Telegraph recently. The headline to the story is: “Mahabharat historian gets research reins.” The impression one gets is that somebody steeped in mythology is now going to redirect history — which is for real historians.

The initial paras of the story start in the same vein: “A retired history professor who has written articles arguing that stories from the Ramayan and the Mahabharat are truthful accounts of events that took place has been named chief of the ICHR, the government agency to promote historical research. Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, whose interests include Vedic literature, Sanatana Dharma and Bharatiya Sanskriti, set the tone for his three-year tenure after taking charge on Saturday.”

So, a retired professor can’t head the ICHR? And does an expert on India’s two best-known epics automatically make himself ineligible for a post involving historical research?

And did he really say that the Ramayan and Mahabharat are truthful accounts of events? His exact words were this: “The stories of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat cannot be termed a-historical just because there is not enough archaeological hard evidence. Excavations cannot be done in many places since people are living there and you cannot evict them. A lot of historical material has come through cultural, anthropological, archaeological and ethnographic studies in the last 60 years about the continuous Indian civilisation. The findings can be compiled by researchers. I think the ICHR should support historians interested in doing work on these aspects.”

This is hardly the same as claiming that everything in the two epics is historical fact.

I am not trying to say Rao and Irani will end up writing or researching the “right” history, but surely they are entitled to do so. If Middle Eastern sites can be excavated to find proof of Jesus’s existence based on Biblical claims, is looking for fact in the Ramayan and Mahabharat necessarily a dubious exercise?

Whether what Smriti Irani and Rao will end up doing will be right or wrong we will know only when they actually show us what they do. Right now, all talk of “rewriting history” and “saffronisation” is a load of bull. The government’s critics are crying wolf too early. – Samachar.com, 5 July 2014

» R. Jagannathan is currently Editor at Web 18, which is part of Network 18. In a journalistic career spanning 35 years, he has edited several national general and business publications, including DNA, Business Today, Business World, Business Standard, Indian Management, and Financial Express. He blogs at Newthink.
From bharatbharti

INDIA UNDER SEIZE-WAKE UP CALL.

CLICK FOR LINK

VANDE MATARAM-TIME TO RESTORE GLORY OG MOTHRT INDIA.

TIME TO RESTORE LOST GLORY OF VANDE MATRAM-RASHTRA GAN.

Mother, I salute thee!

Rich with thy hurrying streams,

bright with orchard gleams,

Cool with thy winds of delight,

Green fields waving Mother of might,

Mother free.

Glory of moonlight dreams,

Over thy branches and lordly streams,

Clad in thy blossoming trees,

Mother, giver of ease

Laughing low and sweet!

Mother I kiss thy feet,

Speaker sweet and low!

Mother, to thee I bow.

Who hath said thou art weak in thy lands

When swords flash out in seventy million hands

And seventy million voices roar

Thy dreadful name from shore to shore?

With many strengths who art mighty and stored,

To thee I call Mother and Lord!

Thou who saves, arise and save!

To her I cry who ever her foe drove

Back from plain and sea

And shook herself free.

Thou art wisdom, thou art law,

Thou art heart, our soul, our breath

Though art love divine, the awe

In our hearts that conquers death.

Thine the strength that nerves the arm,

Thine the beauty, thine the charm.

Every image made divine

In our temples is but thine.

Thou art Durga, Lady and Queen,

With her hands that strike and her

swords of sheen,

Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned,

And the Muse a hundred-toned,

Pure and perfect without peer,

Mother lend thine ear,

Rich with thy hurrying streams,

Bright with thy orchard gleems,

Dark of hue O candid-fair

In thy soul, with jewelled hair

And thy glorious smile divine,

Loveliest of all earthly lands,

Showering wealth from well-stored hands!

Mother, mother mine!

Mother sweet, I bow to thee,

Mother great and free!

translated by Sri Aurobindo

History of 'Vande Mataram': The Source of Inspiration http://www.sanatan.org/en/vandemataram/index.html Author Shri. Sanjay Mulye 'Vande Mataram' is well known as the National Song of our country. In this song, the two words 'Vande Mataram' have achieved major importance. These are the only words that many freedom fighters remembered while being sentenced to rigorous punishments in Court or being hanged to death. Muslim organisations have objected to this song. They opine that it is against the 'Shariyat'. In this country, whether something is right or wrong is determined on the basis of the Indian Constitution. Yet Muslims are demanding total elimination of 'Vande Mataram' on the basis of the 'Shariyat' law. Let us learn about the history of 'Vande Mataram' in the context of the Muslim opposition to it.   The greatness of the motherland is the essence of Hindu culture. Every ruler, right from Lord Rama to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, has had a deep sense of belonging for the Motherland. After the killing of Raavana, when Lord Rama was presented with a proposal to stay back in Lanka, His very famous reply was, "Janani Janmabhumishcha Swargaadapi Gariyasi" Lord Rama says, "My mother and motherland are dearer to me than heaven (let alone Lanka)".   There is no reason for the song 'Vande Mataram' to smell of a specific religion. Which beloved son will not hold this land, which is sujala, sufala and sashya shamala, in high regard? Who will not salute the motherland who is prosperous, meritorious and bestower of riches? It the implied meaning of this song is contemplated upon, the heart gets filled with pride for this land named "Bharat".   The national Mahamantra Bankimchandra wrote the song 'Vande Mataram' on 7th November, 1875. This lunar day was Kartik Shukla Navami! This song had been published in the novel 'Anandmath' by Bankimchandra. The vocabulary used in this song is influenced by Sanskrit. The said book contains information about the violent revolt of Sanyasis against injustice inflicted by Muslims and the British in Bengal in the year 1772.   In the year 1905, Lord Curzon declared the division of Bengal. Whole of Bengal revolted furiously in order to revoke this division. The two words 'Vande Mataram' encompassed the whole of Bengal. It was these words themselves that made the English rage with anger. Curzon's chela, i.e. the Governor of Bengal had imposed a legal ban on uttering the words 'Vande Mataram'. This ban resulted in 'Vande Mataram' getting nationwide importance. It became a National Mahamantra.   'Vande Mataram' became the favorite word of the freedom fighters. On 6th August 1906, a daily newspaper was brought out in the name 'Vande Mataram'. Any program related to the freedom struggle would be concluded only after saying 'Vande Mataram'. The National Flag decided upon by Sister Nivedita at the Kolkata Congress and the one hoisted by Madam Cama at the International Communist Conference held in Germany had the words 'Vande Mataram' boldly encrypted on it in the Devanagari script. The sessions of the All India Congress would start with the song 'Vande Mataram'.   Utterance of the words 'Vande Mataram' gave freedom fighters and the common public the strength to withstand lathi blows on their heads and whiplashes on their open bodies. In 1905, the 21st session of the Congress was held at Varanasi (Benaras). During this session, the famed Bengali poetess and singer Sarladevi Chaudhurani sang the entire 'Vande Mataram'. Nowadays, we just sing the first stanza of 'Vande Mataram'. Many among the new generation do not even know how big it is!   Censoring of 'Vande Mataram' In the year 1937, during the meeting of the Congress Working Committee in Kolkata, it was decided to cut short this National Song, with the sole motive of appeasing Muslims. Thus began the era of misfortune of this song! The Muslims were not satisfied even then. They wanted to eliminate this song completely. On 17th March, 1938, the Chairman of the Muslim League, Barrister Jinnah raised objection to reciting the first stanza of 'Vande Mataram' also. Appeasement of Muslims by the Congress In 1940, Rules and Regulations framed for the Congress members restricted them from using the adage 'Vande Mataram'. When Muslims objected to the usage of 'Vande Mataram' in the working of the Constitutional Conference, they were granted permission to sing an Urdu song written by Bashir Ahmed. Likewise, they were also permitted to recite some stanzas from the Koran.   In 1937 in many regions of India, Congress Ministry came to power in authority. Some may have thought that now 'Now good days will come for 'Vande Mataram', but it also proved false. In the process of Muslim appeasement there was strict prohibition of singing of 'Vande Mataram' on All India Radio. The famous singer Master Krushnrao gave a big fight for this. He did not sing on All India Radio for many years in the pretext of 'If there is no 'Vande Mataram' on radio, then there is no song of mine'. In March 1947 on account of Respected Krushnrao's efforts, the ban on 'Vande Mataram' was removed. The first Public song by Ravindranath Tagore The great poet Ravindranath Tagore publicly sang this song 'Vande Mataram' in Calcutta in 1896. He devised his own tune for this. The 'Kaafi' tune framed by Pt.Vishnu Digamber Palusker gained wide publicity. The song is song in other tunes besides the 'Kaafi' tune. The song was first publicly sung in 'Kaafi' tune in Lahore through the mouth of dynamic; illustrious Pt. Palusker. The present one to be broadcasted from All India Radio is in 'Sarang' tune.   Nehru's obstacle for 'Vande Mataram' becoming National song The reason given by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for 'Vande Mataram' not to become the National song was that it would not be able to rhyme it with the band, but Respected Krushnrao Fulmbrikar proved this wrong in a scientific manner. The efforts of Krushnrao Fulmbrikar were so enormous that he earned the title of 'Vande Mataram Krushnrao'. Shri. Amarendra Gadgil has written a book named 'Historical story of Vande Mataram'. In this book it is mentioned he says 'There was no reason for the actual discussion of what should be the National song in Free India, but due to the weakness in 1937 that the Congress despised 'Vande Mataram' of Congress, with the same weakness further Pt. Nehru removed this patriotic song from the place of National song. In 1937 when Congress Ministry became the part of regional administration, the relation that Congress means government has been set in this country. Pt. Nehru after managing all the facets of democracy, till the end carried his rule uninterruptedly like an independent Emperor. (Kruschov has given him the title of 'Democratic Dictator'!). As a result the situation that 'whatever Congress says is the law and what Pt. Nehru says is Congress' continued even after Nehru's rule. The national sin of deprivation of the 'Vande Mataram' as National song from its lawful place has been committed because of these two, means this song only in the silly pretext of music became the victim of politics and Nehru ideology. There is strong enough evidence to believe that Nehru had pre decided about not allowing this song as the National song. Finally on 24th January 1950, that is two days before declaration of India's Republic, the Constitution Committee put its seal on 'Jana Gana Mana' as the National song. Though the precedence of sacrifice of the national interest for the sake of politics, for one's self esteem and selfish party motives started by Congress and Pt. Nehru is still continuing today, it does not mean that it is acceptable to the whole country or the further generations. It is very mandatory for those who have affection for this history, especially the young ones of the new generations as their national duty to rethink about 'Vande Mataram'. Although the Constitution has taken away the place of 'Vande Mataram', it is not impossible to restore it.

 

CHINA AND INDIA'S COLONIAL EXPLOITATION BY EUROPEANS -TRUTH FACT.

HOW INDIA GDP CHANGED FROM SECOND AFTER CHINA IN 1780 TO 1.2% IN 1900 AFTER MUSLIM ANS FOLLOWED BY BRITISH'S LOOT

DEFALCIFICATION OF HISTORY OF INDIA/BHARAT

'Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.' - Dr. Subramanian Swamy

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.

The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The UPA has succeeded in persuading more state governments to accept the NCERT texts. A report on Monday (January 5, 2009) said 12 more state governments have accepted to teach NCERT texts in their schools.

For the last two weeks the Organiser is carrying a series of articles on the NCERT textbooks prescribed for students at the primary, secondary and higher secondary schools. We have found these books written with a peculiar mindset, to denationalise and deculturise the young Indian. These books fail to make the children aware of their true heritage. These books seem to distort even India's freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's role and try to divide the society into different caste and class segments. Their idea is to convince the children that India as a nation came to exist only after August 15, 1947.

We request the parents, teachers, students and scholars to join this academic exercise to expose the shenanigans behind promotion of these books in Indian schools. ?Editor

The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others who acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One?s religion may change, but culture does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the dissemination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be derived from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our schools and colleges is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to destroy our identity. India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and of only recent origin. The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot who are hopelessly divided against themselves. Such a ?history? has been deliberately created by the British as a policy. Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that ?I think the real danger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence?.. We shall (therefore) break Indians into two sections holding widely different views?.. We should so plan the educational text books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened?.

After achieving Independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the implementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never done, in fact the very idea was condemned as ?obscurantist? and Hindu chauvinist by Nehru and his ilk.

The Imperialist History of India
What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this history, India is portrayed as the land ?conquered? first by the ?Dravidians?, then by the ?Aryans?, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, everything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with foreign rule. For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is about 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagaram empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact the territory under Krishna Devaraya?s rule was much larger than Akbar?s, and yet it is the latter who is called ?the Great?. Such a version suited the British rules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India. Furthermore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the British, India would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself is owed to the plunder of colonialists.

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic invaders. But on the contrary, unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.

These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our educational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who have not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationalism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda that these ideas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State was a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian, and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conquerors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to invading hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded.
Falsification of Chronology in India?s History
The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.

The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Mahabharat (600 B.C.), Buddha?s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta?s coronation (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are directly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes? account of India. In fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the ?sheet anchor of Indian chronology?. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indian history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called Indus Valley Civilization.

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called ?Sandrocottus?. He was stationed in ?Palimbothra?, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian).

The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian history, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of ?noble? birth and, in fact, came to power by deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes? Sandrocottus may well be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).

In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is, of course, a trifle silly to build one?s history on this kind of tongue-gymnastics, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.

In order to determine at which Chandragupta?s court Megasthenes was ambassador, we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra (i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes? account). We know from the Puranas (which are unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including the Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have his capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Chandragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary sources and not on the Puranas.

Pursuing Megasthenes? account further, we find most of it impossible to believe. He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek writers? weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, ?Near a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-wards and have eight toes on each foot.? (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) ?Megasthenes says a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existence with odorous fumes?..? (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears to have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up later by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pondicherry, it reads:

?Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 6451 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandrocottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting the kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But among these a republic was thrice established, one extending?..years, another to 300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile invasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he attacked.?

While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with which he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of his time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the ?Dionysus? and ?Heracles? of Megasthenes? account.

Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was created from Zeus?s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognised as the first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an Indian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wine? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is Prithu.

Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir soma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churned the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (father of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. Since he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first king) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).

In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasthenes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is ?tinged with Soma? in a number of ways and bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth, and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, then indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by DR Mankad, Koti Venkatachelam, KD Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6,451 years had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exactly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandragupta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of Dwarka.

This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do not realise that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (especially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian history especially of the Chandravansa kings of Magadha.

In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle of lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various other systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenting these calculations here.

However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta was ?Sandrocottus? c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who established a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, while his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discussion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha?s Nirvana 1807 BC, Maurya Chandragupta c. 1534 BC, Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 BC.

The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentification. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified as Asoka?s. It was, however, Samudragupta?s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, which directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside. We state here only a few examples ? such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at Patliputra c. 410 AD. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleeting reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came during the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 BC. (2) A number of Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 BC. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions leave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka?s kingdoms, whereas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the character of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as RK Mukherjee has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.

The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it. But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.

The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-construct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by Indians about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hindu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fact that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravartian ideal ? to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum internal autonomy to the janapadas.

A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. Sanskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.

An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge national unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future generations from costly errors in the past.

In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strategy.

Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. And without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defalsification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.

WRONG HISTORY- How Imperial Britain's Racist India ‎Still Persists.The Greatest Cover-Up in History ?

This article is from Huntington Post.Posted by Abhey Singh.
"Many hundreds of years before the coming of the English, the nations of India had been a collection of wealthy and highly civilised people, possessed of great language with an elaborate code of laws and social regulations, with exquisite artistic taste in architecture and decoration, producing conceptions which have greatly influenced the development of the most progressive races of the West." Henry Mayer Hyndman, 20th Century British politician.
"Indian philosophers' subtleties make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys." T. S. Eliot, British playwright.
"So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked." Mark Twain, American author.
A primary indicator of the success of any civilisation is its economic standing, which often directly impacts the quality of social justice, human development, polity, governance, as well as achievements in science, innovation and the arts. By this vital yardstick alone, India has been the most successful nation in recorded history.
According to the painstaking calculations of Cambridge University economic historian, Angus Maddison, India was the world's largest economy for the majority of the 1,700 years before the entrenchment of the British East India Company.
India had accounted for as much as 33% of global GDP - more than three times that of the whole of Western Europe combined - with even a GDP per capita often exceeding that of Britain. During the eras of loot, war and colonisation that preceded the British Raj, the 'Indian way' remained largely intact and as a result, India was still the second largest economy in the world, briefly overtaken by her giant sister civilisation, China (which was also subsequently brought to her knees by Imperial Britain).
"India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia. She had great merchants, businessmen, ship building - nearly every kind of manufacture known to the civilised world was already in India". Rev J. T. Sunderland, American Christian minister.
By 1700, India was again the world's largest economy, accounting for 24.4% of global GDP, more than that of the whole of Europe combined, and almost ten times the size of Britain's economy, whose growth had already began benefiting from 'trade' with India, China and Africa. By the time of independence, a socially, economically and industrially devastated India's share of global GDP had plummeted to a mere 4.2%.
"A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today." Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India.

By independence, the world's leading ship building, metallurgy and textiles industries had been systematically decimated (and subsequently cloned in Britain); a society with a system of mass education was now almost fully illiterate; and callous Imperial policies led to a population explosion that India is still grappling with today.

One of the most macabre manifestations of the malevolent intent and unequivocalineptitude of British rule - which is still shamefully projected as 'benevolent' and 'efficient'- was the genesis of mass poverty and famine throughout what is now called the 'developing world'. Tens, of millions of people in India - and hundreds of millions throughout the colonised world - died from starvation alone during such 'Victorian holocausts'.

"..I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history." William Durant, American historian.

One of Mahatma Gandhi's principle grievances against the British was not merely that of Britain's presence in India - he even accepted allegiance to the Crown. Instead, it was how Britain had systematically dismantled painstakingly nurtured Indian systems of administration, food and water management, industry, grassroots economic prosperity, education and social cohesion.

"When the British came, there was, throughout India, a system of communal schools managed by village communities. The agents of the East India Company destroyed these village communities. Instead of encouraging education, the Government encouraged drink." William Durant.

Starving children in Africa, malnourished villagers in India, despotism in the Middle East and the corruption, gender crimes, illiteracy, social decay and destitution that afflicts more than half of humanity are the real and overwhelming legacies of colonial rule.

It is of no irony that virtually all former British colonies, from Kenya to India, and Egypt to Pakistan, have been cursed with almost identical Imperial footprints; the same set of existential problems, the same Victorian social character, and the same wholly disingenuous post-colonial narrative.

In this context, and given her relative size, India's achievements since independence are particularly astounding given the scale of the existential threats that she faced in 1947, and the fact that she has pursued a path which she ostensibly first gave to the world - democracy. Despite the ugly headlines that dominate our view of an India that is still recovering from the direct impact of colonial rule, the country has lifted more than half a billion people out of poverty, malnutrition and illiteracy and achieved rapid strides in science, technology and the arts.

Graduates from Indian universities such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and Management (IIM) are of the most prized in the world; a disproportionate number of Silicon Valley start-ups, Intel's Pentium chip, the USB stick, Google search algorithms, Hotmail and fibre optics are just some of the major new economy contributions derived from the exacting standards of Indian education (US Ivy League universities have been back-up options for Indians who have failed to gain admission to an IIT or IIM).

A national ID system that was considered too complex and costly to develop for Britain's 60 million people, is being swiftly implemented in an India of 1.2 billion people; electronic voting, which we are still grappling with in Britain, was first implemented in India in the 1980s, with all-electronic voting having been in place for a decade. Whilst a hypocritical London of diesel-powered taxis pompously lectures New Delhi and Beijing about the environment, India has diligently enforced natural gas-powered taxis, buses and auto-rickshaws for almost two decades; and whilst much of Britain still wastes precious food and desists from recycling, India has an intricate but effortless system of door-to-door recycling derived from an ancient respect for the environment.

India is today one of the largest private sector investors and employers in Britain, and Indian aid to Africa is centred on the development of health, education and communication infrastructure, as opposed to the economic exploitation and patronising heavy-handedness that still defines European approaches to 'engagement' with an Africa that we comprehensively devastated in the first place.

"India, which has just announced that it will do what Britain could not do - send a space probe to Mars - is now a country with more technological prowess than our own. Its economic progress has been remarkable." Theodore Dalrymple, English writer & psychiatrist.

Astonishingly, this is still only the prelude of India's revival. The country is on track to accomplish in just one century what the United States and Europe took up to threecenturies to accomplish in the modern era, and in the case of post-Roman Britain, the best part of 1,500 years. Moreover, India's resurgence is devoid of the military or forced economic colonisation of any other nation or people.

According to various studies, including by PwC, Knight Frank and Citi Private Bank, India is again expected to become the world's largest economy within the next few decades, barely a century after independence.

Unlike the historical blip of short-termist, aggressive and iniquitous Western economic dominance, India is once more expected to sustain its economic pre-eminence over centuries, by virtue of the inherent wisdom of a socio-economic system that is defined by high savings ratios, a long-term approach, compassion for the poor, a strong protection of the interests of labour, and a far more benign style of leadership and management - all of which are counterintuitive to Western economic and management logic.

"God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of [England] is today keeping the world in chains. If [a country as large as India] took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts." Mahatma Gandhi.

In next week's final instalment, I will address some of the most commonly perpetrated myths about British rule in India, as well as explain my motivation in writing this series. I will end this piece with a quote that exemplifies how the resilience, ingenuity and capability inherent in deep rooted Indian value systems also imbue humanity, compassion and emotion at their very core (the same qualities that incidentally - and very wrongly - give the impression that Indians are meek walkovers):

"It is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in the self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way." Dr. Arnold Toynbee, British Historian.

macaulay minute
indians were more literate prior to arrival of the british-in-india--a-historical-perspective